MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320069759 · doi:10.1097/coh.0000000000000110

The brain and HAART

2014· review· en· W2320069759 on OpenAlexafffund
Rick B. Meeker, Eugene L. Asahchop, Christopher Power

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveNucleoside Reverse Transcriptase InhibitorEfavirenzDrugAntiretroviral therapyViral replicationNevirapineImmunologyViral loadIntensive care medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyBioinformaticsVirusPharmacologyBiologyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize contemporary observations regarding the effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on the brain. RECENT FINDINGS: The effects of HAART on the structure and function of the brain during HIV/AIDS is currently a subject of intense interest because the brain is one of the most drug-impenetrable organs that is infected by HIV-1 and as such represents an important reservoir for replication-competent virus. The effects of HAART on neurocognitive impairment caused by HIV-1 infection remain uncertain with both beneficial and adverse outcomes reported with different HAART regimens. Similarly, the effects of individual HAART regimens on viral quantity in cerebrospinal fluid as a surrogate indicator of brain virus burden are variable. Indeed, the situation is further complicated by the ranking of antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) by their central nervous system penetration-effectiveness score on the basis of ART concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid. Experimental studies have also yielded equivocal findings depending on the model and individual ART. At the same time, a burgeoning body of experimental data has demonstrated neurotoxic effects of several ARTs, including nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors (PIs). SUMMARY: HAART selection strategies are currently guided by efficacy, resistance testing, toxicity, potential drug interactions and theoretical brain penetration. As improved strategies are developed to target the viral reservoir within the brain, greater knowledge of the effects of ARTs on neural tissues will be needed to operationalize their use in a rational manner that maximizes antiretroviral efficacy and minimizes the neurotoxic complications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207